I'm not too concerned about studying scripture, though I love to read quotations on the web, largely because I feel the basics are enough for me(and I have studied them), and I don't feel I need to go beyond the basics until I've mastered the basics. One of the simple teachings of the Buddha is to develop mindfulnness, awareness, wisdom,

In our everyday life we're constantly faced with challenges and situations that the Buddha never saw or even imagined; cell phones, cars, internet, cigarettes, chemical drugs, medicine, hospitals etc etc etc. So to think that the sutras have a passage to explain and help us with every situation, is perhaps not so realistic.

On an everyday basis we are being asked to answer dilemmas and situations, that are outside the scope of our scriptural learning, would the Buddha want us all to have cell phones, cable TV, big stereos, I won't even say internet!!

Namu cautions us about monks who make up answers in their head, instead of from scriptures; What's wrong with that??? Every single day we're being asked to make up answers in our heads to deal with new situations, if an aware monk, trained in mindfulness makes up answers with out basing it on scripture, we at least should consider it might be good advice, regardless of its source.

Of course if he's making up teachings and claiming they are from the Buddha, when they are not, that's really bad, but I haven't met too many monks that try to do that.

Logged

to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

I was a forum moderator on another board (philosophy related) for several years. I've participated on a number of forums as a member for a number years as well, much like many of the participants here. My opinion based on my observations is that rampant deleting of posts and heavy-handed punishment tend drive quality members away, and attract members that think incestuously like the over-zealous moderator(s) / admin(s). That may indeed be what the remaining members want, but that doesn't necessarily mean the quality of the board is improved.

The focus of any forum needs to be clear to it's members. The rules of operating need to be clear to members. The moderators / admins need to operate within those rules and enforce them with professionally, compassionately, and with impartiality. When moderators / admins are allowed to get their digs in and censor out critical responses, people lose faith in the board and the moderation system. As such, careful vetting of moderators will determine to a great extent the quality of the forum. Additionally, I think different stages of permissions granted to new members can be helpful too. This is a form of vetting incoming members. This may seem controlling, but do you want numbers of members or quality members that are committed to the best interests of the forum. This might mean limiting the number of posts they can make per day, or limiting access to various forums until they have demonstrated over some time that they are either sincere in learning or knowledgeable in advising, as well as civil in their transactions with people. Most of the time, trolls and other trouble makers don't want to have to jump through hoops. Slow sustained growth tends to be longer lasting that rapid growth.

I think that a democratic self-moderation method is a very risky venture. Most likely what will happen is that a hand full of members will repeatedly be the ones engaging in the democratic decision making, and most members will remain on the sideline. So what you end up with is simply a larger but more informal moderation staff that is still not necessarily representative of the forum membership as a whole. If anything, an election process by the membership (with willing moderator candidates) might be a better option. It may be easier to get members to occasionally vote on a moderator than it would be to get many of them to consistently check a forum to review all the various problems that might arise and discuss / vote on them. That is time consuming (as is quality moderation in general).

In the end, there are no easy solutions to successful forum moderation. It is a process of commitment that requires mature people.

These are my broad, humble thoughts. I make no assumptions about the process here, nor the existing staff as I haven't been here long, nor do I know any of the folks involved to any extent.

I think a real, possibly even realistic goal, would be to petition a real monk or nun, with real training and a hell of a lot of patience, to join the forum as its resident sangha, not necessarily as a moderator. Such monk/nun would have to be convinced to take this on as a missionary mission to spread the Dharma, not just to correct wrong views of frequent posters, but to say this is how it is at the temple, and this is how I was taught the scriptures, and we would definetly need moderator help so that the monk/nun was treated with respect, just like you would treat a monk/nun at a temple.

On Dhamma wheel there is a Burmese monk (in burma I think) thats very knowledgable, if you think this is a good idea, let me know and I'll contact him.

Oh, we've had both monks and nuns on-board and for different reasons it didn't work out. We welcome venerables, but this forum doesn't seem to be their cup of tea.

Hey seriously, Ive been PM ing with vern and noticing his posts on another forum, this guys a real crisis negotiator, and I had no idea he had experience as a moderator, he seems like a real possibility if he's willing to try, 2 votes for Vern!!!!!

Logged

to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

I appreciate the support folks, but I'm not really interested in a moderator position at this point. I'm really trying to get my head around Buddhism at this point, and between that and other things going on I would not be able to devote the necessary time or attention.

The main problem is that I have very little knowledge about different traditions and I'm very nonconfrontational. I'd spend at least an hour banging my head on the desk before taking any kind of measure that might upset anyone, meaning that the boards would become more or less unmoderated and I would constantly have a very sore and bumpy forehead.

Yours! So take the gift and change it.

"Possibility for democratic self-moderation"... forget it, people of today would not even survive in "peace" for a half a year if not gigantic systems and some wise would support them as well as kick them.Modern people are not free. They might have got the possibility to scream, but even so, they actually would not know for what.

So a kind of multiple choice solution is good. So everybody is free to choose, to change his chosen opinion and is not bothered to make real decisions or even to keep responsible for a task or a choice.